Ex Parte Mckee et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 30, 2018

12467716 (P.T.A.B. May. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/467,716 05/18/2009
25537 7590 06/01/2018
VERIZON
PA TENT MANAGEMENT GROUP
1320 North Court House Road
9th Floor
ARLINGTON, VA 22201-2909
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Martin W. MCKEE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
20090026 8562
EXAMINER
CHANG,TOMY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2456
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/01/2018 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
patents@verizon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte MARTIN W. MCKEE, PAUL T. SCHULTZ,
ROBERT A. SARTIN!, and HUBERT SIER
Appeal2017-010546
Application 12/467,716
Technology Center 2400
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, BRUCE R. WINSOR, and
JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges.
LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants 1 appeal from the
Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4--6, 8, 13-19, 34, and 37--46.
Claims 3, 7, 9-12, 20-33, 35, and 36 have been canceled. See App. Br. 19-
28 (Claims App'x). We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Verizon
Communications Inc. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2017-010546
Application 12/467,716
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 'Invention
Appellants' invention generally relates to "obtaining and utilizing
social network information, associated with a social network( s) to which the
user belongs, for a communication that occurs outside of the social network
and in which the user is a participant." Spec. ,r 18. Claim 1, which is
illustrative of the claimed inventions, reads as follows:
1. A method comprising:
transmitting an outbound communication and receiving an
inbound communication, by a user device, in a non-social
network, wherein the outbound and inbound communications are
between a user and one or more other users;
selecting, by the user device or by a device in the non-
social network in response to identifying the one or more other
users, a social network, from multiple social networks accessible
via the non-social network, to which the user belongs based on
communication session information associated with the
outbound and inbound communications;
accessing, by the user device or by the device in the non-
social network, the social network using credentials associated
with the user;
searching, by the user device or by the device in the non-
social network, the social network to identify information
relating the one or more other users to the user;
determining, by the user device or by the device in the non-
social network, that the identified information includes:
a social graph path indicating a set of relational links
that identify one or more non-users connected between the
user and the one or more other users, wherein the set of
relational links corresponds to multiple tiers of affiliation
of connections with respect to the user, and
2
Appeal2017-010546
Application 12/467,716
a shared data-pool of call tags that each characterize
the one or more other users and a purpose of the inbound
communication based on feedback from users of the social
network with respect to the one or more other users;
identifying, by the user device or by the device in the non-
social network, each tier of affiliation from the multiple tiers of
affiliation that corresponds to each of the one or more other
users;
performing, by the user device or by the device in the non-
social network, a screening service with respect to the inbound
communication, wherein the screening service comprises
prioritizing receipt of the inbound communication, based on the
user's preferences with respect to a first weighting of the call tags
associated with each identified tier of affiliation, wherein the first
weighting is greater relative to a second weighting of call tags of
the shared data-pool associated with another one of the tiers of
affiliation, and the first weighting is less than a third weighting
of call tags of the shared data-pool associated with yet another
one of the tiers of affiliation;
generating, by the user device or by the device in the non-
social network in response to performing the screening service,
a graphical user interface (GUI) to present the inbound
communication in a listing of inbound communications, wherein
the GUI includes a menu including:
a first user-selectable option for sorting the listing
of inbound communications according to the affiliation of
connections with respect to the user, and
a second user-selectable option for sorting the
listing of inbound communications according to the tiers
of affiliation; and
displaying, by the user device or by the device in the non-
social network, the sorted listing of inbound communications via
the GUI according to the affiliation of connections or the tiers of
affiliation in response to receiving a selection of the first user-
selectable option or the second user-selectable option.
3
Appeal2017-010546
Application 12/467,716
References
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims:
Fisher et al.
Kuykendall et al.
Hansen et al.
US 2007 /0203991 Al
US 2009/0136013 Al
US 2009/0310768 Al
Rejections
Aug. 30, 2007
May 28, 2009
Dec. 17, 2009
Claims 1, 2, 6, 13-15, 17-19, 34, and 38--46 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Hansen and
Fisher. Final Act. 2-10.
Claims 4, 5, 8, 16, and 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Hansen, Fisher, and Kuykendall.
Final Act. 10-14.
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend the combination of Hansen and Fisher does not
teach or suggest:
generating. . . a graphical user interface ( GUI) to present
the inbound communication in a listing of inbound
communications, wherein the GUI includes a menu including:
a first user-selectable option for sorting the listing
of inbound communications according to the affiliation of
connections with respect to the user, and
a second user-selectable option for sorting the
listing of inbound communications according to the tiers
of affiliation,
as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 11-16; Reply Br. 1-5.
4
Appeal2017-010546
Application 12/467,716
Regarding the disputed limitations, the Examiner finds Hansen
teaches sorting inbound communications using information obtained from a
social network indicating a closeness of a relationship between the sender
and the receiver of a communication. Ans. 16 ( citing Hansen ,r 45). The
Examiner finds, therefore, Hansen teaches or suggests sorting
communications based on tiers of affiliation. Ans. 16. The Examiner finds
Fisher teaches generating a menu that allows a user to select criteria and an
order for sorting messages. Ans. 16 (citing Fisher, Fig. 4; ,r,r 38, 75-80).
The Examiner finds Fisher teaches that the messages can be sorted based on
a category that a user is affiliated with and based on an importance of a
relationship between the sender and the receiver. Ans. 16-17 (citing Fisher,
Fig. 4; ,r,r 39-52). Based on these findings, the Examiner concludes the
combination of Hansen and Fisher teaches or suggests the disputed
limitations because "it would have been obvious to apply the teachings of
Fisher with regard to providing a GUI to select sorting, methods for sorting
by social closeness and/or category of use with the sorting methods of
Hansen." Ans. 17.
Appellants argue Fisher teaches viewing a list of messages ordered by
the social importance of people or a relationship indicator and does not teach
or suggest a graphical user interface including a menu having a first user-
selectable option for sorting the listing of inbound communications
according to the affiliation of connections with respect to the user, and a
second user-selectable option for sorting the listing of inbound
communications according to the tiers of affiliation, as required by claim 1.
App. Br. 12-13 (citing Fisher ,r,r 39-52, 54--75). Appellants argue "although
Fisher describes a nominal 'social importance' or 'relationship indicator'
5
Appeal2017-010546
Application 12/467,716
metric, Fisher's metric cannot be reasonably construed to correspond to
either the affiliation of connections with respect to the user, or the tiers of
affiliation, as would be required of Fisher based on independent claim 1."
App. Br. 13. Appellants further argue "Fisher's selection and/or sorting
criteria-how messages are addressed, a status as read/unread, the relative
number of messages exchanged with a given individual, and/or a timeframe
associated with the exchanges-in no way relate to 'a set of relational links'
that identify one or more non-users connected between the user and the one
or more other users ( e.g., mutual connections of the sender and the
recipient)" and, therefore, Fisher fails to teach or suggest the disputed
limitations of claim 1. App. Br. 15.
We do not find Appellants' arguments persuasive. Appellants'
Specification does not expressly define "tiers of affiliation" or "affiliation of
connections." Regarding "tiers of affiliation," the Specification provides
"SNIR 710 may provide information that indicates 'degrees of closeness or
separateness' of other user 105 to user 105 (e.g., direct connection, an
indirect connection, or some other type of nomenclature ( e.g., first tier,
second tier, third tier, etc.))." Spec. ,r 53. The Specification provides an
example of a connection considered to be a "first tier" as "a close friend"
and a connection considered to be a "second tier" as "a friend of a friend."
Spec. ,r 32. As such, we agree with the Examiner that the broadest
reasonable interpretation of "tiers of affiliation," consistent with the
Specification, includes "any measure of degree of social closeness between a
two entities." Ans. 15.
Regarding "affiliation of connections," the Specification provides
"[s]elector 1220 may permit user 105 to sort received messages according to
6
Appeal2017-010546
Application 12/467,716
affiliations (e.g., mutual connections of the sender and user 105)." Spec.
,r 76. The Specification further provides that "SNIR 710 may provide
information that includes connections of other user 105 ( e.g., which may or
may not include mutual connections of user 105)." Spec. ,r 53. Thus, we
find the Examiner's broad interpretation of "affiliation of connections" as a
category/ grouping associated with a connection to be reasonable and
consistent with Appellants' Specification. See Ans. 15; Spec. ,r,r 53, 76.
Hansen teaches that callers may be identified based on caller type
("IMMEDIATE FAMILY," "EXTENDED FAMILY," "FRIENDS") and
caller group ("KNOWN TELEMARKETER," KITEBOARDING CLUB,"
"ROCK CLIMBING CLUB"). Hansen i1 49, Fig. 5. Hansen teaches that
"[ c ]aller type 504 identifies the type of relationship that the caller has with
the subscriber" and that "[ c ]aller group 506 defines a number of entries
comprising, immediate family, extended family, and friends." Id. Hansen
further teaches that the caller group may include the categories personal and
business and that the personal category may include entries such as family,
friend, and friend of a friend. Id. Hansen teaches that the caller group may
also define an interest group, such as known telemarketers, connections
belonging to a local kiteboarding group or a rock climbing club, and families
who go to the same school. Id. Hansen, therefore, teaches or suggests
identify callers based on tiers of affiliation and affiliations of the connection.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, Fisher describes a menu ( e.g., a
graphical user interface) that allows a user to select criteria by which
messages are to be sorted. Ans. 16 ( citing Fisher, Fig. 4; ,r,r 7 5-80). Fisher
teaches that the criteria allows a user to sort messages by the social
importance of people. Fisher ,r,r 33-39. Fisher describes a list of
7
Appeal2017-010546
Application 12/467,716
communications, sorted based on the social importance of the
correspondents, as including the correspondents named "Spouse" and
"Siblings" at the top of the list based on determining that they have an
important relationship with the user. Fisher ,r,r 39--45. As such, we agree
with the Examiner that the combination of Hansen and Fisher teaches or
suggests the disputed limitations. Ans. 16.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments that "Fisher's
nominal use of 'social information' to sort its list of messages does not
disclose or suggest the claimed sorting parameters" (Reply Br. 5) because in
addition to the correspondents named "Spouse" and "Siblings," indicating a
degree of social closeness between the user and the correspondents ( e.g.,
tiers of affiliation), Fisher teaches that the sorted list of communications
includes "Team colleague" and "Distributed Mailing list," indicating a
category or group to which the correspondent belongs (e.g., affiliation of
connections). Fisher ,r,r 42, 44.
Appellants further contend the combination of Hansen and Fisher fails
to teach or suggest "displaying, by the user device or by the device in the
non-social network, the sorted listing of inbound communications via the
GUI according to the affiliation of connections or the tiers of affiliation in
response to receiving a selection of the first user-selectable option or the
second user-selectable option," as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 15-16.
Appellants argue because the cited references do not teach or suggest the
limitations of claim 1 discussed supra, Hansen and Fisher cannot teach or
suggest the claimed "displaying." App. Br. 15. Appellants further argue
"Fisher's 'Sort By' section cannot be reasonably construed to disclose or
suggest the sorted listing of inbound communications via the GUI according
8
Appeal2017-010546
Application 12/467,716
to the affiliation of connections or the tiers of affiliation in response to
receiving a selection of the first user-selectable option or the second user-
selectable option, as would be required by Fisher based on independent
claim 1." App. Br. 16 (citing Fisher ,r 76).
Because we disagree with the premise of Appellants' arguments (i.e.,
that the combination of Hansen and Fisher fails to teach or suggest
"generating ... a graphical user interface ... include[ing] a menu including:
a first user-selectable option for sorting the listing of inbound
communications according to the affiliation of connections with respect to
the user, and a second user-selectable option for sorting the listing of
inbound communications according to the tiers of affiliation"), we are not
persuaded by the conclusion drawn from that premise (i.e., that the
combination of Hansen and Fisher fails to teach or suggest the claimed
"displaying").
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 1.
Regarding the rejection of claims 2, 4---6, 8, 13-19, 34, and 37--46,
because Appellants have either not presented separate patentability
arguments or have reiterated substantially the same arguments as those
previously discussed for patentability of claim 1 above (see App. Br. 16-17),
claims 2, 4---6, 8, 13-19, 34, and 37--46 fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 2, 4---6, 8, 13-19, 34,
and 37--46 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
9
Appeal2017-010546
Application 12/467,716
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
10